Boris Johnson’s independent ethics adviser has said the PM acted “unwisely” in the handling of his flat refurbishment but found that despite a “significant failing” in his approach, there was no breach of the ministerial code.
Christopher Geidt released the findings of his inquiry into the five-figure renovation of the 11 Downing Street flat alongside the much-delayed register of ministerial interests, five months after it was due for publication in December.
Lord Geidt found that the funding of the lavish redecoration gave rise to a private interest for Johnson because of the financial support provided to the prime minister by Conserative Campaign Headquarters and Tory donor Lord Brownlow.
But he added: “I have considered the nature of that support and am content that no conflict (or reasonably perceived conflict) arises as a result of these interests.”
The assistance from his party would put the prime minister under no additional obligation, while there was “no evidence” that Lord Brownlow “acted with anything other than altruistic and philanthropic motives”, said the independent adviser.
Lord Geidt said that plans for a trust to fund the PM’s share of the maintenance and refurbishment of the flat were “not subjected to a scheme of rigorous project management by officials”.
And he added: “Given the level of the prime minister’s expectations for the trust to deliver on the objects he had set, this was a significant failing.
“Instead, the prime minister – unwisely, in my view – allowed the refurbishment of the apartment at No 11 Downing Street to proceed without more rigorous regard for how this would be funded.”
Lord Geidt’s report finds that there were discussions soon after Mr Johnson’s arrival in Downing Street in July 2019 about updating the system under which the prime minister has paid for any refurbishment of his official residence in the building, beyond a £30,000 a year allowed provided by the taxpayer.
But plans for the establishment of a Downing Street Trust to cover the extra costs had not been concluded by the time work started in April 2020, while Mr Johnson was in hospital suffering from Covid-19.
Official advice was that the trust plan “while not straightforward, could be made to work”.
Invoices for work on the flat were paid for by the Cabinet Office and then charged to the Conservative Party in anticipation of the trust repaying the amount.
The report found no evidence of Mr Johnson “being aware either of the existence of these invoices or how they were settled”.
But legal advice in June raised doubts over whether the trust would be capable of dealing with the costs.
Lord Brownlow, a former vice-chair of the party, was appointed to chair the trust in July, even though it had not yet come into existence. With no trust in place by October, Lord Brownlow himself settled an invoice for works directly with a supplier, but Mr Johnson was neither informed nor advised on his private interests.
Lord Geidt said he had been assured both by Mr Johnson and the others involved that “at no point in the eight months until late February 2021, as media reports were emerging, was the prime minister made aware of either the fact or the method of the costs of refurbishing the apartment having been paid”.
It was only as reports of the situation emerged in the media that Mr Johnson became aware of the arrangements and settled the full amount himself on 8 March, said Lord Geidt.
The peer – former private secretary to the Queen – found: “It is clear from the record that while a serious and genuine endeavour, the trust was not subjected to a scheme of rigorous project management by officials.
“Given the level of the prime minister’s expectations for the trust to deliver on the objects he had set, this was a significant failing. “Instead, the prime minister – unwisely, in my view – allowed the refurbishment of the apartment at No 11 Downing Street to proceed without more rigorous regard for how this would be funded.”
From the outset of the renovation work, Mr Johnson and the Conservative party “placed reliance” on the idea that a trust could be created to generate enough income to repay the costs.
“Under normal circumstances, a prime minister might reasonably be expected to be curious about the arrangements, and especially the financial arrangements that led to the refurbishment of his apartment at Downing Street,” said Lord Geidt.
“In the middle of a pandemic, the current prime minister simply accepted that the trust would be capable of satisfactorily resolving the situation without further interrogation. It is the case that the prime minister was ill-served when officials did become aware, albeit they were no doubt also managing their own very difficult circumstances.”
Despite these mitigations, the peer ruled that the issue of the flat fell under the terms of the ministerial code of conduct.
But he ruled: “Having advised that the interests declared by the prime minister present no actual or perceived conflict, I consider them to be consistent with the provisions of the ministerial code.”
He said that the interests had now been properly declared by Mr Johnson and accepted that any delay in making the declaration was due to the fact that the PM “reasonably assumed” that the issue was dealt with by the creation of a trust.
Cabinet secretary Simon Case has acknowledged “shortcomings” in management of the project and in the failure to advise Mr Johnson earlier of the problems with the establishment of the trust.
